State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (7/22/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

This morning, Strategic Vision released the numbers from a survey of New Jersey. For Chris Christie, the results of the gubernatorial trial heat are another feather in the Republican's cap. But for Jon Corzine, they offer yet another ominous sign.

Christie: 53%
Corzine: 38%
Daggett (I): 5%
Undecided: 4%

Margin of Error: +/- 3 points
Sample: 800 likely voters
Conducted: July 17-19, 2009

Sadly, there are no attendant crosstabs, so digging down can only go so far. However, here are a few thoughts. This is the first poll since independent candidate, Chris Daggett was added to the questioning that Christie has cleared the 50% barrier. In fact, the Republican has not topped that mark since the calendars were flipped to July. To break through, then, and hit the highest point he has had throughout all the polling conducted on this particular match up since the beginning of the year is telling for Chris Christie. Of course, the flip side of this result is that, at 4%, the undecideds are at their lowest level of any poll as well.

But those sorts of fluctuations are why FHQ applies its weighted average to the polling results. Christie did jump (over a point) in the average to extend his lead over the incumbent Democrat to nearly ten points. [And incidentally, the undecideds are sitting right around the 11% mark when averaged. Sure, but doesn't that include the data from polls where the undecideds were over 20 points back in the earlier part of the year? Yes, but the graduated weighted scheme takes care of that. For transparency's sake, however, if we look at just the polls conducted since the New Jersey primary on June 2, that number drops to about 8.5%. In other words, still above the 4% we see in this current Strategic Vision poll.] If we look at just the polling done since Christie's primary victory, the Republicans advantage grows to just 10.5 points.

Christie, then, is ahead and comfortably so at that. But what about Corzine? The thing that is most troubling for the incumbent is that he is seemingly stuck in a rut. There has really been no movement in his numbers -- good or bad. The governor has settled into the 37-41% range and hasn't really budged. That tempts me to stop making comparisons between this race and the Brendan Byrne comeback victory in the 1977 gubernatorial election. At a similar point in that race Byrne, trailed his Republican opponent (Raymond Bateman) 53-36 among likely voters. Eerily similar, right? Yes, and even though there was only scant polling in that 1977 race prior to that point in July, the fact that Corzine has basically not moved all year -- other than his March swoon -- is troubling to say the least. It is still relatively early in this race (most voters may not be paying attention yet), but not as early as it once was.

Just to throw another number out there, Obama's approval in New Jersey in this poll was right at 50%.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: Two Birds, One Stone

Presidential Approval Tracker

Today's 2012 Presidential Trial Heats In-Depth

Presidential Primary Reform Week: Two Birds, One Stone

This is part two in a series of posts this week dealing with presidential primary reform. As a refresher you can also look at FHQ's earlier synopsis of several of the various reform proposals that have been talked about and/or considered. The maps are a little clunky, but will suffice for now. I'm planning a revamping of them in the not too distant future. You can also find part one (National Primary with a Twist) here.

A couple of months ago I got an email from Matthew Sanderson (former McCain-Palin campaign finance counsel) with another innovative idea for presidential primary reform. Up until now, I didn't know what to do with it, but since the news on reform has quietly ramped up of late (more coming later in the week), I have an opportunity to put Mr. Sanderson's idea out there. Here's the premise as Matt laid it out to me. [As always, you can read the full proposal here -- a forthcoming article in the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. It is a pdf file, but is freely available. And yes, it's a lengthy read, but is chock full of great background research.]

Two Birds proposes a package of reforms that would pivot the Public Funding System away from its current emphasis on spending limits and retool it to combat frontloading in the presidential nomination process. The proposed reforms include: (1) delaying the System's matchable-contribution and disbursement dates until October 1st of the pre-election year and April 1st of the election year, respectively; (2) forcing candidates to compete for a single pool of funds, with no guaranteed maximum or minimum amount; (3) transforming the general-election grant into a matching-funds program, similar to that currently used during the primary-election period; (4) eliminating the grant to political parties for national conventions; and (5) creating new, unconventional benefits for public funding participants, such as automatic ballot access.

First of all, if you thought the FairVote plan discussed yesterday was ambitious, it has nothing on Matt's plan to overhaul not only the presidential nomination process but to fix campaign finance as well. Also, there's more to it, but for our purposes I'll try to focus on just the frontloading and presidential primary finance mechanisms. If you have thoughts on the other portions of the proposal feel free to sound off in the comments section.

At face value, I love this idea. As the title implies, two birds (frontloading and campaign finance), one stone (well, several small stones thrown together really). The entire idea is predicated on motivating the presidential candidates -- especially the main contenders -- to opt into the changes to the campaign finance system and that states' hands will be forced as a result, moving them into compliance vis a vis primary and caucus scheduling. That's not necessarily a complicated process, but getting there would be a real battle. Let's put the pieces together:

1) Move the matchable contribution date from January 1 to October 1 in the year prior to the election and move the disbursement date from January 1 to April 1 of the election year. I can buy that. If contributions are not matchable until the October prior to primary season kicking off and matching disbursement checks are not handed out until April of the election year, then participating candidates would be unable effectively campaign in many states earlier than April. As such, states would be motivated to shift to a point in the calendar when candidates would and could actually pay them some mind.

That's all well and good, but how do you get candidates to opt in? That's the big question, right? Fixing frontloading, as detailed here, can only be fixed if the major candidates accept the terms of the enhanced system.

2) Well, that piece of the puzzle is dependent on a handful of factors. First, the stick. If you opt in as a candidate, you are in for both the primary phase and the general election phase. None of this opting out for the primaries and crawling back in for the general election (see Bush, George W., Kerry, John and McCain, John). But there's also the carrot (multiple ones actually). First, participating candidates can take advantage of a cap-less pool of money and can do so to the detriment of their opponent. That is, instead of the $160+ million cap on 2008 general election funds for example, there would be no cap. On top of that, if you raise more than your opponent, you get more than your opponent. Furthermore, if your opponent goes it alone outside of the proposed system, you get everything in the pool. Oh, and there is a 4:1 matching fund ratio to sweeten the deal.

Not bad, huh?

No, it isn't. But the one problem I have with all of this is this: What if, as a candidate, you know you can out-raise your opponent and what he or she can gain from the new system? Even if Barack Obama had ceded the entire $168 million in federal money to John McCain in 2008, the then-Illinois senator still would have been able to out-raise/out-spend the Arizona senator. But that's somewhat underhanded of me. This system applies to both the primaries and the general election. Obama didn't necessarily know in February 2008 that he could outdo McCain financially in the general election. He would have been more concerned with Hillary Clinton at the time. More to the point, he would have been interested in how he'd stack up financially compared to the former First Lady. Would the promise of matching money in the fall have been enough pie in the sky to bring Obama to the table in the Two Birds-One Stone system? Perhaps.

Here's the thing: The more I think about this, the more I think of how perfectly it would have worked in the 2008 environment. But what about other elections? If you're an incumbent and see a close election on the horizon, maybe you'd jump in (Bush 2004), but if you saw a comfortable win coming, you might just as soon opt out (Clinton 1996). Well, that's a fair number of elections right there. It is and we haven't even tackled the open seat elections. Opting in in those cases would be conditional as well, though. In 2008, sure, this system likely would have worked. I can see Clinton and Obama and McCain opting in. But in 2000, I don't think so. Gore and Bush were heavy favorites and would have quickly eschewed the parameters of this system. Both were comfortable frontrunners who were fine with the status quo in both the primaries and general election.

The key would be getting this up and running and strategically, you'd be better served doing it ahead of an open seat presidential election with no clear frontrunners. Maybe that's 2016, maybe it's not. But you would face a major obstacle in pushing this when an incumbent who can raise lots of money is running for reelection and can shun the system. Of course, I have Obama in 2012 in mind as I'm writing this. But that money could very well dry up to some extent if the economy isn't trending in the right direction by then.

But if the candidates don't buy in, then we're right back to square one with campaign finance and frontloading.

Interesting stuff, Matt.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Approval Tracker

Today's 2012 Presidential Trial Heats In-Depth

PPP Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney)

Presidential Approval Tracker

[Click Figure to Track/Compare Approval]

If you haven't seen it already, USA Today has a neat little gadget up today using Gallup data that allows you to track President Obama's approval rating and compare it to past presidents all the way back to Truman (when Gallup's efforts commenced). You can zoom in and out on the time series by moving the handles at the bottom of the graph and you can also compare presidents side by side. This has already been used as fodder among the political class (believe it or not).

This one is worth keeping tabs on as we approach next year's midterm cycle, and obviously, 2012.

[Honestly, someone who has more time than I do now should take the data on the last eleven presidents and use that to project where Obama will end up. That isn't particularly accurate, as things are bound to come up that are unique to Obama's administration, but it would be an interesting baseline, nonetheless.]

Hat tip to Josh Tucker at The Monkey Cage for the link. Tucker, by the way, is calling on those who frequent TMC (read: political scientists) to put Obama's current position and the honeymoon effect generally into context.


Recent Posts:
Today's 2012 Presidential Trial Heats In-Depth

PPP Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney)

Rasmussen Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama vs. Romney & Palin

Today's 2012 Presidential Trial Heats In-Depth

We were all treated to a double helping of 2012 general election presidential polling today (...if you like that sort of thing.). Public Policy Polling's numbers were expected, but Rasmussen had some numbers on prospective match ups between Obama and Palin/Romney as well. One of my complaints last week about the 2012 trial heats was that only PPP had conducted any thus far in the admittedly (very) early stages of 2012 election cycle. If you are going to conduct polls this early, it is nice to know that you have more than one polling outfit to lean on. Enter Rasmussen, who polled Romney and Palin against Obama in addition to PPP's now fourth iteration of their Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney versus Obama survey.

The one thing that I want to note before I jump into looking at the results of these individual match ups is that the sample sizes between these two polls are vastly different and that may say something about the reliability of each organization's numbers. For a national poll the standard sample size is something at or around 1000 respondents. Rasmussen had exactly that, but Public Policy Polling had but 577 respondents. As I mentioned last week in my piece on the 2012 polls, PPP has come under that 1000 respondent mark three of the four times they've done these 2012 surveys (or four out of five counting the Obama/Palin survey that initiated the series back in March). Are these reliable numbers? Other than the May poll that had 1000 respondents, there has been a general closing of the gap between Obama and his would-be challengers since April. That tracks well with the president's overall decline in approval and favorability over that period of time.

But are the results reliable? Seemingly, but certainly not as reliable as the more robust sample from Rasmussen. Here's an example: GOP12 points out that PPP breaks favorability and the hypothetical trial heats by region. Interesting, right? Yeah, until you look more closely. Obama sweeps all four Republicans in the South! What!?! The president also wins across the board in the northeast (not surprisingly), loses to Gingrich and Huckabee in the midwest and is vulnerable in the west against Palin and Romney. Normally, a lightbulb would go off for me there. "Hey, why don't we try and project that onto the electoral college, just for fun (I still might do this. Ha!)?" But those numbers in the South give me pause.* As I lamented on Friday, it would have been nice to have seen what the non-May numbers would have looked like in those PPP polls had each had the standard sample size. At the end of the day, a 577 respondent sample would be solid for a poll here in Georgia, but on the national level, not so much.

Moving on...

[Click to Enlarge]

Against Newt Gingrich in the PPP survey, Obama actually goes up. Well, Gingrich does, too. The results here are just a reiteration of the status quo from a month ago. Rasmussen didn't poll Gingrich in the trial heats which make sense considering he lagged behind the leading troika of prospective GOP candidates, but that makes the exclusion of...

[Click to Enlarge]

...Mike Huckabee in the Rasmussen poll all the more surprising. Again, Huckabee, Palin and Romney have all traded off handling the top honors for "best against but still trailing Obama" in all of these polls thus far. And they have all clustered together and well above all others save Gingrich for the duration of these surveys as well. Nonetheless, Huckabee was not included in the Rasmussen questions. The former Arkansas governor was, however, a part of the PPP survey. And whereas both Gingrich (41 to 42) and Obama (49 to 50) rose this month over last, Huckabee (43 to 42) and the president (50 to 48) both saw declining shares of support in the July poll. I don't find that that is anything to write home about, though. Again, like the Gingrich numbers, these just serve to validate the status quo in this match up.

[Click to Enlarge]

As we move into the Palin and Romney results, we can begin to compare and contrast how the Rasmussen and PPP polls stack up against one another. Both polls show the soon-to-be-former Alaska governor rising as compared to last month's PPP survey, but the July PPP poll shows greater improvement than does Rasmussen. Regardless, the improvement continues to indicate that Palin's July 3 resignation announcement has not necessarily hurt her in terms of polling (2012 or otherwise). Given the question marks surrounding the PPP poll outlined above, if we take the Rasmussen results, we see that Obama is under the 50% mark against Palin for the first time in any of these trial heats. That's a far cry from the 55/35 split from PPP favoring the president in March. It just goes to show you how quickly the political outlook can change. And yes, that should serve as a not of caution concerning these polls. It is still very (VERY) early and much can change between now and next year's midterms, much less 2012.

[Click to Enlarge]

The result that will catch everyone's eyes from these two polls is the Obama/Romney split in the Rasmussen poll. The 45-45 tie is a remarkable sign of the current position the president is in: precarious given the typical, early term highs in January and Februrary. Still, this is a widely divergent result compared to the nine point advantage Obama has in the PPP survey (49-40 -- no decided change from last month). Now, I've certainly already called into question the sample size of PPP's poll, but without the Premium Service (I'm cheap, not to mention poor.) from Rasmussen, I don't know that it is fair to compare these two polls. Upon seeing the results, I'd wager that the Rasmussen poll has a few more Republicans in its sample than does the PPP poll (42% Democratic, 35% Republican and 23% Independent/Other). Again, these polls are all verging on the premature, but the real take home message from them is one you can easily glean from Obama's approval and/or favorability numbers: The president's support is dwindling. Obama is still fine among Democrats, but has virtually no crossover appeal and is seeing his advantage among independents evaporate like a small rain burst on a late July afternoon in Georgia. There's still something there, but it is certainly less than what it once was.

Let's wrap this up on a lighter note:

[Click to Enlarge]

Just for fun, let's look at the three-way general election race with Palin as an independent. If John Sides hates 2012 polls, then I'm sure he'll just love a poll that takes two hypothetical steps to even get to. First of all, Palin has to lose the GOP nomination (one she hasn't even announced she's running in) to Romney and then has to decide to run as an independent. That's almost hypothetical enough in 2009 to make me queasy. And that's saying something! Understandably, this type of three person race negatively affects the Republican Party's fortunes in a prospective 2012 general election. Obama remains stationary at a shade under 50% (Well, maybe more than a shade for an incumbent president.) while Palin pulls enough away from Romney to give the president a comfortable enough edge (11 points) over the former Massachusetts governor. Mitt's already been tweeting about the Rasmussen results, but here's betting he won't be trumpeting these three-way results. Well, he won't until he asks Sarah Palin to be his running mate and has an affirmative answer anyway.

I may have given Rasmussen another idea for a poll question there.

*For the record and given the crosstabs, there would have been 196 respondents from the South, 138 from the northeast, 150 from the midwest and 92 from the west. I honestly don't know if those numbers are going to yield representative results for those regions much less the nation in the aggregate.


Recent Posts:
PPP Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney)

Rasmussen Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama vs. Romney & Palin

Presidential Primary Reform Week: National Primary with a Twist

PPP Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney)

Ah, here are the Public Policy Polling numbers for 2012:

Obama: 50%
Gingrich: 42%
Not Sure: 9%

Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 42%
Not Sure: 10%

Obama: 51%
Palin: 43%
Not Sure: 6%

Obama: 49%
Romney: 40%
Not Sure: 11%

Margin of Error: +/- 4.1 points
Sample: 577 voters (national)
Conducted: July 15-16, 2009

For a more in-depth look at this poll and the Rasmussen survey also out today, see here.


Recent Posts:
Rasmussen Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama vs. Romney & Palin

Presidential Primary Reform Week: National Primary with a Twist

Join FHQ for Presidential Primary Reform Week This Week

Rasmussen Poll: 2012 Trial Heats (Obama vs. Romney & Palin)

Well, I wasn't expecting that. Rasmussen preempted Public Policy Polling's 2012 trial heats with a version of its own this morning. The particulars:

Obama: 45%
Romney: 45%
Other: 7%
Not Sure: 3%

Obama: 48%
Palin: 42%
Other:
Not Sure: 3%

Margin of Error: +/- 3 points
Sample: 1000 likely voters (national)
Conducted: July 16-17, 2009

For a more in-depth look at this poll and the Public Policy Polling survey also out today, see here.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: National Primary with a Twist

Join FHQ for Presidential Primary Reform Week This Week

Presidential Primary Frontloading (1976-2008)

Presidential Primary Reform Week: National Primary with a Twist

This is part one in a series of posts this week dealing with presidential primary reform. As a refresher you can also look at FHQ's earlier synopsis of several of the various reform proposals that have been talked about and/or considered. The maps are a little clunky, but will suffice for now. I'm planning a revamping of them in the not too distant future.

On Friday, FairVote went public with a novel idea for presidential nomination reform. Here's their idea (and please follow the link above to read the full explanation of the proposal):

"The entire political universe, from the heights of the Washington establishment to the depths of the grassroots, agrees that our presidential nominating process needs to be reformed. But while there is broad consensus that a problem exists, there are myriad diagnoses as to what actually needs fixing. As the parties begin internal and interparty discussions about what elements need tweaking, it‘s time to take a serious look at more extensive and comprehensive reforms that will truly fix the process. The parties should begin to debate a plan that includes traditional state-based nomination contests culminating in a final, decisive national primary." [Emphasis mine]

I really like this idea, but for a few things...

1) Coordinated action. This is another idea that will require coordinated effort from both national parties. I don't see this as the monumental roadblock that I once did. Folks from both sides seem to be mindful of the fact that now is the time to hammer something meaningful out on reform. Of course, one man’s meaningful is another man’s useless.

2) $$$$. The idea of moving congressional primaries to coincide with the national primary is ingenious. It is also imperative. Without that, states would be confronted with footing the bill for another (separate) election. I’m not sure, but I’m fairly certain that this current period is not the proper time to be pushing an additional election to be paid for with taxpayer money. Call it a hunch. The other side of this is that it probably wouldn’t just be congressional primaries moved but all primaries. And there may be some complications there because that would obviously include state legislative primaries (in most states). If any perceived negative impact surfaces there, state legislators — the folks primarily tasked with initiating these election date changes — may put their own self interests above the national party’s. Now, what could be seen as a negative impact to state legislators? First and foremost, the most problematic aspect is turnout. Some legislators might prefer lower turnout primary elections. Those conditions are to their advantage, after all.

3) Delegates/conventions. One major piece missing from this puzzle is the delegate calculation. What effect does the national primary have on the allocation of delegates? Are the state contests merely just the first round (beauty contests)? Does the national primary determine the allocation of all the delegates or just a certain percentage? And finally, what does this do to the convention? I suppose the same rules apply, but this national primary idea has an air of finality to it. "The delegates are allocated. Let the general election begin!" This last point is a minor issue. If this plan was instituted, the parties, I'm sure, would go on having their conventions as if nothing had happened. It isn't as if the conventions have been decisive of late (though they could have been in 2008 if Hillary Clinton had kept her campaign going throughout the summer).

4) Candidates. What does this plan do to candidate strategy? Would candidates drop out as they do in the currently configured system? Super Tuesday does have a way of winnowing the field down to (usually) one candidate. But I don't know. Candidates may opt to tough it out. After all, the candidate who places second at the end of all the primaries and caucuses moves on to the runoff national primary. Money would be the determining factor there, though. If you don't have any money you can't go on. What a national primary like this does accomplish, though, is basically a reset. Things kinda sorta go back to the way they were prior to the McGovern-Fraser reforms in one respect: there's a prize at the end of the calendar. Look at the allocation of Democratic delegates in 1976. The date on which the most delegates were at stake was the last one on the calendar. This proposed system, however, would have all of the delegates (it seems) at stake on the final date. In that regard, some of the same dynamics that prevailed in the earlier iterations of the McGovern-Fraser system would return in the revised system. Mainly, that would mean that, sure, candidates would drop out as they do now (when they aren't catching on), but it would also potentially mean that you would have candidates jumping in the contest midstream (depending on how frontloaded the calendar is -- If the calendar is like 2008, it wouldn't have made sense for, say, Jeb Bush to have jumped in after Super Tuesday's delegate giveaway. There likely wouldn't have been enough delegates left to counter McCain's lead after February 5.) as well. Essentially, then, this proposed system would offer two opportunities for buyers' remorse: once by giving a late-arriving candidate a chance to catch on and then again in the national primary when the second place finisher goes against the frontrunner (the winner of the most contests).

5) Turnout. One last hypothetical and I'll wrap this up. What if candidates continue to drop out of the race as they do now and the winner becomes a foregone conclusion? Not only that, but what if the party is satisfied with the "presumptive nominee"? Does the national primary, then, become something akin to the conventions now: a formality? If the national primary is a formality, then that is likely going to be a low turnout affair, which is something, I think, that would be against the wishes of those who have crafted the idea. Another argument along these same lines is that the national primary, in such a situation (low turnout), would become an election ripe for insurgency. Again, let's look at the 2008 Republican nomination contest. Let's assume that everything was the same about the contest, but that there was a national primary at the end. Why would Republicans go to the polls on the national primary day? The contest is over, right? Yes and no. Seemingly McCain has won, but technically, he hasn't. What if Ron Paul was able to quietly (or perhaps not so quietly) call on his supporters to turnout and vote? Would his loyal following amount to enough to overcome a low turnout in favor of McCain? Maybe, maybe not, but here's guessing that the GOP wouldn't even want to consider the possibility. [Of course, 2008 would have played out differently had there been a national primary at the end. Neither Huckabee nor Romney would have withdrawn from the race, I suspect.]

I don’t know that any of these things are deal breakers, but I do think they are factors that would have to be ironed out to some extent to avoid any unintended consequences. And despite the fact that I often come down hard on these reform plans, what I ultimately want to avoid are unintended consequences that make matters worse. But some might argue with me about the ways in which (or whether) things could get worse in the current presidential nomination system.


Hat tip to Matthew Shugart over at Fruits and Votes for the link.

Part Two of this series tomorrow will deal with another new and sweeping reform proposal. Stay tuned...


Recent Posts:
Join FHQ for Presidential Primary Reform Week This Week

Presidential Primary Frontloading (1976-2008)

Search Engine Wars? FHQ Prefers Google

Join FHQ for Presidential Primary Reform Week This Week

Democratic Change Commission and Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meetings notwithstanding, there has been enough news about the parties' methods of nominating presidential candidates recently to warrant an entire week devoted to the process, and perhaps more importantly, the process of reform. Each day this coming week, then, FHQ will discuss one reform proposal specifically or some relevant news about the process that really has not seen the light of day yet. We'll start tomorrow off with an interesting new proposal I caught wind of late Friday and progress from there.

Also coming this week:

1) Tomorrow starts the week off with a bang and no, not just because of the announced series of posts above. [I've got better things to do than worry about that sort of thing.] Public Policy Polling will be releasing their July numbers for the 2012 general election trial heats (Obama v. Gingrich/Huckabee/Palin/Romney) on Monday. Be on the lookout for an update of our 2012 graphs and additional analysis soon thereafter.

2) Also, on Tuesday or more likely on Wednesday, PPP will have some numbers out of Louisiana. There's likely to be an Obama/Jindal head-to-head poll in there, but I may be guilty of having misinterpreted the intent of that poll in an earlier post. The line from the PPP blog read, "...is Bobby Jindal more popular in his home state than Tim Pawlenty?" Now, that seems like there is going to be a head-to-head between Pawlenty and Jindal in Louisiana, but was likely a reference to Pawlenty's position in an earlier survey the company did in Minnesota. If your hopes skyrocketed because of my post, I apologize. [But it does read that way. It should have been written, "...is Bobby Jindal more popular in his home state than Tim Pawlenty was in his?"]

3) There may also be a vote on the Sotomayor nomination sometime this week. Thus far, FHQ has remained quiet on this issue. That's mainly because the vote in the Senate is what I've been waiting for. Only that is likely to shift candidates' electoral fortunes in the future. If that hasn't been hammered to death by the blogosphere, then I may have something to say about a select few races (depending upon how the vote goes).


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Frontloading (1976-2008)

Search Engine Wars? FHQ Prefers Google

What's Wrong with 2012 Polls?

Presidential Primary Frontloading (1976-2008)

[Click to Enlarge]

1) The darker the map gets, the earlier the contests are.
2) States vertically split in two on any of the maps are states that had contests on different dates for the two parties. Democratic contests are on the left and Republican contests are on the right.

This isn't anything new. These are the same maps that have been residing in the left sidebar (see said sidebar for the attendant primary calendars) for a while now, but the above is probably a better representation of the frontloading trend over time. Sure, you can scroll down the page or look at the slideshow of the changes, but this more immediately demonstrates the effect with each of the maps side by side.


Recent Posts:
Search Engine Wars? FHQ Prefers Google

What's Wrong with 2012 Polls?

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/16/09)

Search Engine Wars? FHQ Prefers Google

There's been a discussion in the tech press lately concerning the pros and cons of Google and the newly refurbished Microsoft search engine, dubbed Bing. No, this has nothing to do with presidential primaries, the 2012 election or anything of that ilk. In fact, it is more horn tooting, I suppose, than anything else. FHQ gets a steady stream of traffic based on people searching online for a number of things: electoral college maps, divisive primaries and generally anything having to do with 2012. I like knowing that people can search using those keywords and find their way to FHQ to discover what I hope they perceive as meaningful information. Hey, that's why this site exists. I could certainly do all the things that I do here and not post them, but why not share? Increasingly the internet is transforming into a highly efficient means of sharing information from the mundane to academic research. [FHQ lies somewhere in the middle, but operates under the assumption that what may be mundane to one man, may be enlightening/academic to the next.]

But what about Google and Bing? Well, to my mind there was no better way for me to check out the search abilities of the upstart, Bing, than to use the typical keywords that guide traffic to FHQ. If Bing is so good/better than Google, then it will do the same and more in terms of introducing more eyeballs to FHQ, right? Sure, theoretically. But that's not what I found. Where FHQ would appear high on the Google list, it rarely appeared at all in Bing searches.

Huh?

Here are some examples:
2012 electoral college map (Google, Bing)
2012 primary calendar (Google, Bing)
Divisive primaries (Google, Bing)
*For the record, Yahoo settles in somewhere in between both ends of the Google/Bing spectrum.

This struck me as odd. But then I realized that Blogger/Blogspot is a Google service and it occurred to me that either Google is protecting their own or Microsoft is penalizing those outside of its accepted list of blog services. [Nah, surely big, competing businesses wouldn't do that!] In the end this is all very interesting to me. Look, FHQ gets a meager amount of traffic in the grand scheme of things, so it isn't that big a deal. But it is curious and makes me wonder if this has affected other bloggers out there.

Plus, it is a slow Saturday and this was something I was thinking about.


Recent Posts:
What's Wrong with 2012 Polls?

State of the Race: New Jersey (7/16/09)

Romney Leads 2012 GOP Race (...and in more than just the Gallup Poll)